Skip to main content

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Jun 12, 2014 9:59am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: who needs visuals?

I am with Rose; while going to shows, 74-82, it WAS a point of pride that our boys/gal didn't do anything silly on stage.

Watching the Woodstock film or Mont Pop Fest, other than Jimi and the Who, NO one of real accomplishment did much of anything on stage...but play and sing.

Nonetheless, I came to think of it as a bit TOO sedate over the yrs, and when looking back, I see that during Feedback, the boys could end up being quite energetic as they position themselves near speakers/amps, and that's something I'd have wanted to see...

Plus, if we look to the pinnacle of banter, 71, such as the famed Harding Theatre, they were esp "active" during the breaks, telling jokes, interacting w the audience, etc., etc.

That's what I missed; I think that by the late 70s, it was drugs and smokes and beer that accounts for the lack of energy except while also seems sad, because they don't seem to enjoy it as much.

So, I would've been fine w very little "activity" as long as they was just enough to convince me they 1) were having a good time; 2) were glad we were there; and 3)played reasonably well.

I am one of those that finds little difference between the supposed "all time best show" and the "all time worst"...they played far too much to literally be HORRIBLE, and the fact is, listening to a six month stretch, like Jan to Jul, 69, they are amazingly CONSISTENT, night in and night out, as to be expected w such consistent set lists, etc., etc., etc.

Later, I am sure w Jerry, it became an issue; but, so to, I cannot actually FIND a show from the 90s in which I say "all time great" as the voices are shot, etc., etc.

Bottom line: they were really a relatively consistent band, w a slow, steady decline that was unavoidable. This also conincided w less and less "joy from the stage" and it was that which mattered, more than "amount of jumping around" (who needs that stuff? absolutely NOTHING to do w what I am there, and music alone. No lights, no running around or whatever...but at least look alive).

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: micah6vs8 Date: Jun 12, 2014 11:27am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: who needs visuals?

> because they don't seem to enjoy it as much.

Even though there was a sense of working man's GD by '70 that was still when they were at the beginning of their careers. I can't help but think, if you look at the full arc of anyone's career, that by ones forties is anything consistently as bright or intense? You have bad days when nothing seems to turn out right, boredom, "coffee" breaks, the same petty paces- but also days when the juice is flowing again and is time to tell Momma to throw a leg over cause it's good now, but it 'aint going to last and who knows when it will be back. Your bottom line was the fate of the band, as it is of us all.

(Also, what an odd op.)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Jun 12, 2014 11:57am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: who needs visuals?

Yeah, true...but ya know, when I see an old Jorma K, or Leo K, or St Winwood/EricC, and even decrepit GBaker barely able to get on the drum kit, I still see a sense of real joy in being there (PHil these days too, right? Folks say that...).

At times that was hard to "see" w Jerry (by 82 he could seem really zonked on stage), and that was more imprt (to me) than "hey, why doesn't he jump like Sting or Pete T or whoever"...and yea, I never thought--at the time--that the breaks were esp long. Back then, again, prior to 82, it was only a bit more than any other band we saw.